THREE people in Cleveland Police resigned in the past two years after being caught accessing private data for non-policing purposes, it has emerged.

Details released under the Freedom of Information Act showed two police officers left the force after carrying out unauthorised vehicle checks and a member of staff resigned over “numerous” misuses.

The Police National Computer is an information system that holds details of people, vehicles, crimes and property that can be accessed by criminal justice agencies.

It also contains data about people’s cautions, warnings and reprimands, as well as other data about their dealings with the police, such as an acquittal at trial or being released without charge.

In Cleveland Police it is accessible to those in the “relevant roles” but it is illegal to access it for personal research and non-police work.

Details of the offences are:

In April 2009, an officer was required to resign after carrying out one unauthorised PNC vehicles check;

March 2010, an officer resigned over an unauthorised PNC vehicles check, and

In September 2010, a member of police staff resigned prior to a hearing over numerous misuses of the PNC.

Some 10 million records are held on the PNC and the data is stored for 100 years from the person’s date of birth.

A spokesman for human rights group Liberty said: “Meanwhile, it has also been revealed that Cleveland Police had the highest number of officers suspended in 2010 in the North.”

The 11 officers included one PC who was off duty for 11 months before he was sacked for “discreditable conduct”.

Another PC was suspended for five months following an allegation of “use of force” but a subsequent investigation found he wasn’t involved.

Three officers resigned before a hearing was held, one of whom had been on leave for more than four months.

One investigation into a detective constable is still ongoing, even though he was suspended on June 29 last year.

Martin Campbell, head of the force’s professional standards department said: “The decision to suspend an officer is not one that we take lightly.

“I do recognise officers may be suspended for a significant length of time, however, this is generally a reflection on the complexity and the severity of the allegation made.

“We conduct a regular review of all cases to ensure an officer remains suspended for no longer than is necessary.”

At Durham there were seven officers on suspension – five for “discreditable conduct” – and while no one was suspended during 2010 at North Yorkshire, two officers who had been put on gardening leave were given the boot for breaching the Police Staff Standards of Professional Behaviour.